From ThatNikonGuyThatNikonGuy has completed what appears to be the first review of the new Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II lens. It’s a pretty good review as he puts them both through the paces. Lots of sharpness, bokeh and autofocus tests were completed at various focal lengths in the review.

He did notice the lenses differ in focal length at 70mm, this is pretty normal. For example, the EF 70-200 f/4L IS is not as wide at 70mm as the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, it’s more like 85mm in examples I have seen.

His biggest point at the end of the review is how good do you want your 24-70 to be? For an extra $1000 (compared to buying a used 24-70 version 1), is it worth getting the version 2 when version 1 is so great? I can’t help with that yet, as I have not seen one land in Canada yet. It is good to know that when you have to make this decision, there really is no wrong choice.

Version 2 looks to be a little bit better at everything, autofocus, bokeh, sharpness, a more pleasing warmer image, lighter weight. The big downside is you’ll have to go buy 82mm filters, hopefully you have some already.

Pretty decent review, mostly because it agreed with my opinion. I own version 1 and didn't/don't intend to upgrade.

Off topic, but in the first part of the video, with the two lenses side-by-side, he really should have set is exposure to manual so that it didn't keep changing as his hands went in and out of the frame.

as for the v2 having a warmer image, couldn't that just be from AWB just grabbing a different value? I don't think he mentioned anything about locking that variable down. just saying. Also, in his tree/water/sun flare shot i see better performance from the v2, and he seems to see that the other way around.

I don't see why testing the lens @f8. I am not going to buy that lens to use it closed. I used version I, I find it good stopped down, but i was not impressed when shooting WO. I guess new version is mutch better uset WO in low light. If it is not the case, I can't find a reson to buy a 24-70 2.8. Diego

:-) ... his videos have a very subjective, amateurish approach - see also his reviews of the Tamron 24-70. While this is fine if you want to p&s, it lacks tech knowledge (the fact alone that he expects 70mm to be the same on every lens).

In this case: The new Canon mk2 uses more doublecross af points on the 5d3/1dx, so it being as fast as the mk1 is a good sign since more precision usually means less speed. And a more detailed test might show that the mk2 has a higher af hit rate on Canon newest systems.

I dare to say... did he have a great copy of the Mk. 1, or are the differences negligible? Looking at the review one would conclude that the mk.1 is the way to go at 60% of the price... is this true though?

I dare to say... did he have a great copy of the Mk. 1, or are the differences negligible? Looking at the review one would conclude that the mk.1 is the way to go at 60% of the price... is this true though?

I'd say based on my experience that he had an excellent copy of the v1, but I've had 3 different copies and one was definitely sharper than the other 2. Lensrentals.com did a test of 100 of them and there was a pretty substantial variance in sharpness. I believe the issue was some gasket in the barrel that gets worn down and can throw it out of alignment leading to soft images. But yes, the 24-70 1 is still a stellar lens and the favorite lens of the best photographer I know. He has tons of gear and Canon primes but he said when he was looking back at his favorite pictures he noticed that it was usually the 24-70@35 or 55mm with a little bit of fill and joked about how much money he could have saved.

I saw this review on B&H, which was reassuring:

"What a welcome update to the prior 24-70. This one is razor sharp throughout the range, fast focusing, too. I have tested a pre-production copy of this lens extensively and find it to be the sharpest zoom lens I have ever used... maybe tied with the 70-200mm f/2.8L II for outstanding IQ. The single, ultimate wedding/event lens ever from Canon? I'd say yes."

I dare to say... did he have a great copy of the Mk. 1, or are the differences negligible? Looking at the review one would conclude that the mk.1 is the way to go at 60% of the price... is this true though?

I'd say based on my experience that he had an excellent copy of the v1, but I've had 3 different copies and one was definitely sharper than the other 2. Lensrentals.com did a test of 100 of them and there was a pretty substantial variance in sharpness. But yes, the 24-70 1 is still a stellar lens and the favorite lens of the best photographer I know. He has tons of gear and Canon primes but he said when he was looking back at his favorite pictures he noticed that it was usually the 24-70@35 or 55mm with a little bit of fill and joked about how much money he could have saved.

I saw this review on B&H, which was reassuring:

"What a welcome update to the prior 24-70. This one is razor sharp throughout the range, fast focusing, too. I have tested a pre-production copy of this lens extensively and find it to be the sharpest zoom lens I have ever used... maybe tied with the 70-200mm f/2.8L II for outstanding IQ. The single, ultimate wedding/event lens ever from Canon? I'd say yes."

I think that the problem for MK1. The QC of MK1 really has problem. I sold my MK1 because the IQ from it was always soft. Hopefully MK2 has better QC.

DB

This review was a little disappointing in that he did not shoot indoors with both lenses @ f/2.8 with various ISO levels (to take advantage of the new 5D3 too) -> imho this is what wedding pro's want to see.

However, as an owner of the mark 1 (UZ11xx date code - so one of the last batch ever manufactured) that is tack sharp and hyper-fast at AF, would I be tempted to pay +40% more for the mark II for at best a +4% improvement? As an amateur/enthusiast, no way. It's a different proposition for a 'Pro' who will amortize the $2200 cost of this new lens over 10-15 years worth of shooting.